Apple might lose, but the fact that the term app had been used before Apple started using it is meaningless. The issue is whether the term was generic at the time Apple started using it. I do not recall the term having widespread usage before Apple incorporated it. I am sure Apple made the term popular, which does establish consumer recognition towards Apple's use of the Mark.

It will be interesting to see what happens.

Wait, why are we even talking about 'app'? It's 'app store' that is in question.

Apple might lose, but the fact that the term app had been used before Apple started using it is meaningless. The issue is whether the term was generic at the time Apple started using it. I do not recall the term having widespread usage before Apple incorporated it. I am sure Apple made the term popular, which does establish consumer recognition towards Apple's use of the Mark.

I absolutely agree that Apple made the word "app" popular with the mass populace. However, the term was well known already to smaller groups.

The fact that a generic term isn't well known to the mass public, does not mean it belongs to the first person to make it popularly known. There must be millions of such terms in the medical, engineering, aviation, marine, manufacturing, archaeological, heck... any!... field.

Remember, Apple also made the term "multi-touch" popular. But although the USPTO originally allowed that trademark as well, they ultimately denied it to Apple after a protest was lodged by a famous touch researcher who argued successfully that the phrase was already a generic term in the touchscreen world.

So. "App" was already generic. That cannot be denied.

However, is "App Store" generic? The two words together are the real debate.

Well, you think it's a waste of time to protect the uniqueness of something you created.

TS, I know your past post history so I'm not going to bother addressing this straw man argument. I may never know what you're talking about when you said that someone was insulting themselves and referencing genitalia, but I can live with that.

I think the fact that Apple basically invented the term "App" and that it was in use exclusively in the NeXT/Apple community for years before any "outsiders" ever even heard of it or used it should be the trump card in Apple's favour.

Also, Amazon's argument is that it was a term in general use before Apple's app store and thus common and "generic." The existence of a couple of examples of obscure use of the term doesn't actually prove that point. for Amazon to prove it's point, the term would have to be in wide-spread use to the point of ubiquity.

I think it's hilarious that Microsoft, the company that trademarked the name "Windows" for a windowing user interface, is objecting to Apple's application for a mark for "App store". Where was microsoft's objection to Sage or Salesforce.com's marks? Oh, that's right, they didn't make any.

The reason is, in 1998 and 2006, there was no Apple App Store, whose name they wanted to steal.

However, Sage networks abandoned their mark. They would have had a claim if they maintained the mark. The more relevant one is Salesforce.com's mark. They have a claim on the name, thus when they "gave" it to Apple, or abandoned it in deference to Apple, they are effectively transferring their rights to the name to Apple. (without actually selling the name.)

For amazon to prevail, they need to show that Salesforce has no right to the name also. And it would be damn hard to claim it was a generic term in 2006.... which also proves Apple's point. It only became well known when Apple introduced the App Store in 2008.

This is akin to Balmer talking about the mac and saying it "has windows". It's true, the mac does have windows, and had it before Windows did. Except that Windows is a completely generic term, while "App store" is a unique combination of two terms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KDarling
Still, the same words can be trademarked if the words become exclusively associated with a certain company. Unfortunately, even Apple's own CEO has used "app store" in a generic sense, and consumers in general were already using "app store" the same way.

The term "App store" means Apple's App Store. Despite knowing about Amazon's "Amazon App Store" for years, I forget that it is called that. The idea that consumers in general have heard of it seems a bit silly. Certainly if you asked 100 people in america "who runs the app store", at least 99 out of 100 who didn't name some other company or didn't know would say Apple. I doubt even that 1 out of 100 would say Amazon.

TS, I know your past post history so I'm not going to bother addressing this straw man argument. I may never know what you're talking about when you said that someone was insulting themselves and referencing genitalia, but I can live with that.

What in heaven's name is wrong with you? There was nothing whatsoever unclear about the example I presented. Either ask for clarification, find it yourself, or just don't bother posting.

Not according to Apple CEO Tim Cook, who has used it to mean app stores in general. For instance, during a public quarterly call he said:

"We've got the largest app store ..."

and

"... iPhone's integrated approach is materially better than Android's fragmented approach, where you have multiple OSes on multiple devices with different screen resolutions and multiple app stores with different ... "

He could've used another term like "app markets" , "app providers", "app sellers", etc. But he did what any normal person would do, and automatically called them "app stores" because it's such an obvious generic term for them.

Quote:

Despite knowing about Amazon's "Amazon App Store" for years, I forget that it is called that. The idea that consumers in general have heard of it seems a bit silly. Certainly if you asked 100 people in america "who runs the app store", at least 99 out of 100 who didn't name some other company or didn't know would say Apple. I doubt even that 1 out of 100 would say Amazon.

But Apple didn't try to trademark "The App Store". Just "App Store". And there's a lot of Android users out there. So if we ask a hundred people "who runs an app store?", we'll likely get back at least "Apple and Google", plus "Amazon" from all the Kindle Fire owners and any savvy Android users.

Personally I think Apple should've gone with something less generic. "Apple App Orchard" or something. Now THAT would be a term that nobody could copy without running into clear trouble.

Well, the term Coca-Cola is also trademarked. Just because Cocacola is grammatically different from Coca-Cola doesn't mean a company can start a Cocacola brand, when Coca-Cola is hugely popular. The term App Store has become generic, well... so has Coca-Cola.

You can call a Pepsi a Coca-Cola and no one will care.
But you can't trademark another Coca-Cola, that's why it's called Pepsi.

And that's why Apple's is App Store, Google's is Play Store, and Microsoft's Whatever Market.

Well, the term Coca-Cola is also trademarked. Just because Cocacola is grammatically different from Coca-Cola doesn't mean a company can start a Cocacola brand, when Coca-Cola is hugely popular. The term App Store has become generic, well... so has Coca-Cola.

You can call a Pepsi a Coca-Cola and no one will care.
But you can't trademark another Coca-Cola, that's why it's called Pepsi.

And that's why Apple's is App Store, Google's is Play Store, and Microsoft's Whatever Market.

TS, I know your past post history so I'm not going to bother addressing this straw man argument. I may never know what you're talking about when you said that someone was insulting themselves and referencing genitalia, but I can live with that.

Good day, sir.

You hit the eject button right when the debate was coming into focus. His argument isn't a straw man. It's the basis of Apple's suit against Amazon. Apple alleges that Amazon is using a trademark ("App Store") that Apple owns, and Amazon dispute that. TS paraphrased the suit as "protecting the uniqueness of something you created" -- in this case, Apple is trying to protect the uniqueness of the App Store trademark.

I get that you think the suit is a waste of time for everybody. That's your opinion, and I'm fine with it. Just back it up with something stronger than dismissing the crux of the lawsuit a "straw man." That doesn't make any sense.

Yes it's a generic term (like "Shoe Store" or "Car Dealership") and stupid to claim the rights to it but is it really worth spending a ton of time and money to fight about it? Amazon should really just change the name of their app store and be done with it. It seems like they're not too bright about picking which battles to fight.

Yes I agree it's now a generic term and these big guys should just agree on some compromise.

But with lawyers involved, they will drag it on, spending money they made from us.

I don't know if it damages the reputation as much as dilutes the value that Apple put into the mark.

You're not wrong, but think of it this way:

John Q. Public gets his brand new "I-phone" (some Android crap) and goes to the Appstore to get an app. The app is a trojan that steals his personal information and e-mails all of his contacts. Or it's just a useless 1:1 Flash port that still expects a hover state. Or it's native but all it can do is crash. Now John's upset at the Appstore, and probably upset at his phone. So his contract's up or whatever and he gets an iPhone. But wait! He remembers his experience with the Appstore and is wary about getting anything from the App Store. His experience, developers' and Apple's revenues, and Apple's reputation are diminished because Apple is curating an "untrustworthy" storefront.

John Q. Public gets his brand new "I-phone" (some Android crap) and goes to the Appstore to get an app. The app is a trojan that steals his personal information and e-mails all of his contacts. Or it's just a useless 1:1 Flash port that still expects a hover state. Or it's native but all it can do is crash. Now John's upset at the Appstore, and probably upset at his phone. So his contract's up or whatever and he gets an iPhone. But wait! He remembers his experience with the Appstore and is wary about getting anything from the App Store. His experience, developers' and Apple's revenues, and Apple's reputation are diminished because Apple is curating an "untrustworthy" storefront.

EDIT: can't stand the BBCode editor...

Fair point, if a little extreme. I thought the Amazon Appstore (I hate typing that) was curated. Still, there's the issue of quality, so a degree you're correct.

Fair point, if a little extreme. I thought the Amazon Appstore (I hate typing that) was curated. Still, there's the issue of quality, so a degree you're correct.

You're correct. The Amazon Appstore is curated, and Amazon themselves have a great reputation for customer service.

Speaking of experience when moving between stores, I think that Amazon customers would really miss the Free App of the Day if they moved to the Apple store.

As for damage to the Apple App Store's reputation, Apple has managed that all by themselves:

For example, back when they were in a rush to pump up their app count. For a while they allowed an unlimited number of fart and website links and other junk apps to be approved. (Once their app count was high enough, Apple went back and removed most such apps.)

Apple's store also looked bad when they refused apps like that one from the Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist... or conversely, approved apps like the one about shaking a baby to death.

You're correct. The Amazon Appstore is curated, and Amazon themselves have a great reputation for customer service.

Speaking of experience when moving between stores, I think that Amazon customers would really miss the Free App of the Day if they moved to the Apple store.

As for damage to the Apple App Store's reputation, Apple has managed that all by themselves:

For example, back when they were in a rush to pump up their app count. For a while they allowed an unlimited number of fart and website links and other junk apps to be approved. (Once their app count was high enough, Apple went back and removed most such apps.)

Apple's store also looked bad when they refused apps like that one from the Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist... or conversely, approved apps like the one about shaking a baby to death.

Those things that supposedly hurt their reputation only served as talking points for the anti-Apple brigade. Considering the App Store is growing by leaps and bounds, I don't think their reputation with actual customers is hurting any.

Those things that supposedly hurt their reputation only served as talking points for the anti-Apple brigade. Considering the App Store is growing by leaps and bounds, I don't think their reputation with actual customers is hurting any.

Thank you for being an intelligent reader. That was exactly the point of bringing up those negatives. Smart people realize that they haven't stopped users.

Likewise, negatives brought up about other stores, have not stopped their use at all, but have only been talking points for the "anti-whatever brigades".

Heck, you can't even get people riled up about the government snooping their calls. All people seem to care about these days, is if they get their mobile entertainment for cheap.